If Verstappen's experience was the issue, why not introduce it after Raikkonen ruffled feathers? I still think it's the FIA monopolising and using Verstappen as an excuse. I don't think the kid is ready either, but why make the FR series practically worthless? Unless they don't like the Red Bull Driver Program as a whole. Renault can't be happy about this, and considering Red Bull have Renault works deals, it gives Christian Horner another excuse to moan (surprised he hasn't started already).

The way I see it, they want to make FR not worth as much toward a super licence in order to make their own series of GP3 and GP2 higher profile with potentially better drivers and less pay drivers. It may also be because more f1 viewers will watch GP2&3 and are less likely to also watch FR which would possibly make new drivers known to them and they can watch them progress.

I do the whole thing is to promote their own series rather to knock down others.

The FIA have realised that they have the ability to leverage F1's popularity and create a route to F1 that can primarily involve their series. It makes sure the best talents will go to their feeder series and therefore make others weaker. The FIA know this and it's a very smart move for them. In this scenario, strengthening the FIA series and weakening others are one and the same. The FIA can get two for the price of one here.

If Verstappen's experience was the issue, why not introduce it after Raikkonen ruffled feathers? I still think it's the FIA monopolising and using Verstappen as an excuse. I don't think the kid is ready either, but why make the FR series practically worthless? Unless they don't like the Red Bull Driver Program as a whole. Renault can't be happy about this, and considering Red Bull have Renault works deals, it gives Christian Horner another excuse to moan (surprised he hasn't started already).

The way I see it, they want to make FR not worth as much toward a super licence in order to make their own series of GP3 and GP2 higher profile with potentially better drivers and less pay drivers. It may also be because more f1 viewers will watch GP2&3 and are less likely to also watch FR which would possibly make new drivers known to them and they can watch them progress.

I do the whole thing is to promote their own series rather to knock down others.

The FIA have realised that they have the ability to leverage F1's popularity and create a route to F1 that can primarily involve their series. It makes sure the best talents will go to their feeder series and therefore make others weaker. The FIA know this and it's a very smart move for them. In this scenario, strengthening the FIA series and weakening others are one and the same. The FIA can get two for the price of one here.

Exactly. At the end of the day, the FIA wants profit. It was probably passed through the minute somebody thought it up, easy money.

It makes complete sense for the FIA though. Now all the best drivers and their sponsors will be lining up outside their door, making the FIA series stronger, bringing in more attention and money. It's the FIA monopolising. It's terrible news for FR and probably racing in general, but it's a good business move from the FIA. Bästards.

The problem is that GP2 has become a series where experienced drivers gain more. And that it is expensive.

Take the two together and you have rich drivers staying in the series for 3-4-5 years, starting out badly but through experience move up until they have enough points and then think they have the right to be in F1 above anyone else because "they did well in GP2".

Just look at Palmer. 28th in his first season in GP2 - 28th! Broke the top-ten only in his third season.

At the risk of hijacking this thread a little, I've had a look at the drivers who have graduated to F1 since the end of 2010 (i.e. once the first GP3 series had been completed) to see who would and wouldn't have scored the necessary 40 points:

Overall, that seems about right. A lot of the drivers who have had seats at Marussia and Caterham in the past couple of seasons, and have done so more on the strength of their financial backing than what they'd actually achieved prior to F1, wouldn't have been allowed to race in F1, which is exactly what we want. The standouts there are Vergne and Ricciardo, but you would assume that if this system had been active back then then Red Bull might've placed them in different series. After all, they've already done that with Gasly and Lynn for this season. With regards to Sainz and Bottas, they would both have gained enough points on the assumption that the F3 Euroseries would've been given the same points weighting as the FIA F3 Championship, which it ultimately became.

It's interesting that the new system will keep out the future Stevens, Ericsson's, van der Garde's, Chilton's, Pic's and d'Ambrosio's so it's not so bad.

I'm biased of course, but I don't recall D'Ambrosio as particularly catastrophic...

And perhaps we should take this into another thread, but I can point you to a driver who wouldn't have made it into F1 with this system, yet was good enough for 2 world championships.

Assume you mean Alonso, but then Raikkonen wouldn't have been able to enter F1, neither (I think) would Button, nor would Vettel... and that's exactly why I only bothered looking back over the last few years. And I do agree with the point a couple of people have made that retrospectively applying it isn't a foolproof exercise because the way they've weighted the points means teams that focused on FR3.5 rather than GP2 probably wouldn't have done so (as I alluded to re: Red Bull placing Gasly and Lynn in GP2 this year). I suppose for those who did graduate from GP2 to F1, especially after spending two/three seasons there, it isn't too inaccurate as (short of the F2 Championship coming back) they would've been racing in GP2 anyway.

I can't remember much about the pre-F1 careers of most of the names you mention, but you've made a very good point indeed. Another one, that your post reminds me of, is that adaptability isn't necessarily instilled in the lower categories, even if a young driver has all the speed a team could possibly hope for.

I wasn't referring to Alonso, as I remember his first win in F3000 came in Belgium, with his Belgian team. (One of the remarks his Belgian team-mate for that race made, was that Alonso couldn't tell his team what he felt or needed, because he didn't speak English well enough!)When reading your post, I remembered seeing Damon Hill and Paul Stewart race in F3000 in Francorchamps, and how Damon never had the chance to score the results he would have needed to land him a seat in F1 with the new system. And yet he was good enough to be a 2-title champion.

Thinking further along the F3000 line, I remember that the initial season used a number of old F1 chassis. Perhaps, with the current Marussia situation, something to reconsider.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

I think we sometimes forget that every driver on the grid is a "pay driver" in some form or another.

Take Alonso for example. He has huge backing from Santander and has brought it with him to teams.

These businesses are investing in a driver. They hope their investment will return the favour by winning races and championships. No business would invest in a bad driver, its just a poor investment.

I don't like the term pay driver because it is an outdated F1 term. Perhaps in the past when we had rich playboys and princes turning up to races to have a go, we had pay drivers. But now we have drivers who have been invested in. Sure, it might get Maldonado through because he is backed by richer investors, but that doesn't mean they just got some dude off the street and chucked him into an F1 car.

Even Hamilton to an extent had investment and backing from McLaren, if they weren't investing in him he might not have made it.

I think we sometimes forget that every driver on the grid is a "pay driver" in some form or another.

Take Alonso for example. He has huge backing from Santander and has brought it with him to teams.

These businesses are investing in a driver. They hope their investment will return the favour by winning races and championships. No business would invest in a bad driver, its just a poor investment.

I don't like the term pay driver because it is an outdated F1 term. Perhaps in the past when we had rich playboys and princes turning up to races to have a go, we had pay drivers. But now we have drivers who have been invested in. Sure, it might get Maldonado through because he is backed by richer investors, but that doesn't mean they just got some dude off the street and chucked him into an F1 car.

Even Hamilton to an extent had investment and backing from McLaren, if they weren't investing in him he might not have made it.

I think we sometimes forget that every driver on the grid is a "pay driver" in some form or another.

Take Alonso for example. He has huge backing from Santander and has brought it with him to teams.

These businesses are investing in a driver. They hope their investment will return the favour by winning races and championships. No business would invest in a bad driver, its just a poor investment.

I don't like the term pay driver because it is an outdated F1 term. Perhaps in the past when we had rich playboys and princes turning up to races to have a go, we had pay drivers. But now we have drivers who have been invested in. Sure, it might get Maldonado through because he is backed by richer investors, but that doesn't mean they just got some dude off the street and chucked him into an F1 car.

Even Hamilton to an extent had investment and backing from McLaren, if they weren't investing in him he might not have made it.

I'm just wondering what pay back do Maldonado's investors get?

Well Pastor is publicly funded isn't he, so we would have to ask the people of Venezuela. I guess someone to cheer.

I think we sometimes forget that every driver on the grid is a "pay driver" in some form or another.

Take Alonso for example. He has huge backing from Santander and has brought it with him to teams.

These businesses are investing in a driver. They hope their investment will return the favour by winning races and championships. No business would invest in a bad driver, its just a poor investment.

I don't like the term pay driver because it is an outdated F1 term. Perhaps in the past when we had rich playboys and princes turning up to races to have a go, we had pay drivers. But now we have drivers who have been invested in. Sure, it might get Maldonado through because he is backed by richer investors, but that doesn't mean they just got some dude off the street and chucked him into an F1 car.

Even Hamilton to an extent had investment and backing from McLaren, if they weren't investing in him he might not have made it.

I'm just wondering what pay back do Maldonado's investors get?

Well Pastor is publicly funded isn't he, so we would have to ask the people of Venezuela. I guess someone to cheer.

What about the Venezuelan advertising on his cars promoting the country and I think the petrol companies names are there too. There is the return.

I think we sometimes forget that every driver on the grid is a "pay driver" in some form or another.

Take Alonso for example. He has huge backing from Santander and has brought it with him to teams.

These businesses are investing in a driver. They hope their investment will return the favour by winning races and championships. No business would invest in a bad driver, its just a poor investment.

Yes and no. Obviously every company would absolutely love to sponsor a young Alonso/Vettel/MSC who then in turn become a WDC and logically a big brand name. But it doesn't really work like that, companies don't judge drivers solely on potential but rather on marketability. A mediocre British/Brazilian/German (for example) will attract many more sponsors compared to an Eastern European or Bolivian one, even if he's as talented as Senna. Not to mention that some drivers like Van der Garde and Chilton are sponsored not because they are marketable or talented, they are simply related to the right people.

Also, I'm not sure Santander is an appropriate example. If I'm not wrong their partnership (Alonso & the bank) didn't start until 2009/10 and it was just fortunate unfolding of events. Santander jumped on the chance to sponsor Ferrari and they were also interested in a Spanish 2xWDC. 1+1. It looks like they have no interest of following Alonso to McLaren but rather are keen to continue their partnership with Ferrari

I think we sometimes forget that every driver on the grid is a "pay driver" in some form or another.

Take Alonso for example. He has huge backing from Santander and has brought it with him to teams.

These businesses are investing in a driver. They hope their investment will return the favour by winning races and championships. No business would invest in a bad driver, its just a poor investment.

Yes and no. Obviously every company would absolutely love to sponsor a young Alonso/Vettel/MSC who then in turn become a WDC and logically a big brand name. But it doesn't really work like that, companies don't judge drivers solely on potential but rather on marketability. A mediocre British/Brazilian/German (for example) will attract many more sponsors compared to an Eastern European or Bolivian one, even if he's as talented as Senna. Not to mention that some drivers like Van der Garde and Chilton are sponsored not because they are marketable or talented, they are simply related to the right people.

Also, I'm not sure Santander is an appropriate example. If I'm not wrong their partnership (Alonso & the bank) didn't start until 2009/10 and it was just fortunate unfolding of events. Santander jumped on the chance to sponsor Ferrari and they were also interested in a Spanish 2xWDC. 1+1. It looks like they have no interest of following Alonso to McLaren but rather are keen to continue their partnership with Ferrari

Could that be because Alonso isn't returning on the investment anymore and most likely won't be able to do that at McLaren (in the short term)??? (Just a thought)

I agree with you though, there are many factors that go into it, but to say these drivers are paying their way in is not accurate. I don't believe that really happens anymore in F1.

Yes and no. Obviously every company would absolutely love to sponsor a young Alonso/Vettel/MSC who then in turn become a WDC and logically a big brand name. But it doesn't really work like that, companies don't judge drivers solely on potential but rather on marketability. A mediocre British/Brazilian/German (for example) will attract many more sponsors compared to an Eastern European or Bolivian one, even if he's as talented as Senna. Not to mention that some drivers like Van der Garde and Chilton are sponsored not because they are marketable or talented, they are simply related to the right people.

I kinda disagree with this. mediocre drivers from smaller markets tend to attract MORE sponsorship because there are far fewer drivers for companies to choose from. Maldonado is a good example. Because there aren't huge numbers of drivers coming out of Venezuela, he gets all the oil money despite being painfully average.

_________________"You mad, bro?"

"Noise is a form of energy and the less you hear means the more you use for propulsion" - Ulrich Baretzky

I think we sometimes forget that every driver on the grid is a "pay driver" in some form or another.

Take Alonso for example. He has huge backing from Santander and has brought it with him to teams.

These businesses are investing in a driver. They hope their investment will return the favour by winning races and championships. No business would invest in a bad driver, its just a poor investment.

Yes and no. Obviously every company would absolutely love to sponsor a young Alonso/Vettel/MSC who then in turn become a WDC and logically a big brand name. But it doesn't really work like that, companies don't judge drivers solely on potential but rather on marketability. A mediocre British/Brazilian/German (for example) will attract many more sponsors compared to an Eastern European or Bolivian one, even if he's as talented as Senna. Not to mention that some drivers like Van der Garde and Chilton are sponsored not because they are marketable or talented, they are simply related to the right people.

Also, I'm not sure Santander is an appropriate example. If I'm not wrong their partnership (Alonso & the bank) didn't start until 2009/10 and it was just fortunate unfolding of events. Santander jumped on the chance to sponsor Ferrari and they were also interested in a Spanish 2xWDC. 1+1. It looks like they have no interest of following Alonso to McLaren but rather are keen to continue their partnership with Ferrari

Could that be because Alonso isn't returning on the investment anymore and most likely won't be able to do that at McLaren (in the short term)??? (Just a thought)

I agree with you though, there are many factors that go into it, but to say these drivers are paying their way in is not accurate. I don't believe that really happens anymore in F1.

Nah, I just think Ferrari on its own, even without winning, is a much bigger draw for companies compared to an extremely marketable driver + a big F1 team (although they've been slipping into mediocrity in the last coupe of years). The brand Ferrari is simply that big.

But they do. Van der Grade drove in Caterham because he bought his way in. Same with Sutil and Gutierrez in Sauber, same with Nasr in Sauber now, same with Maldonado in Williams (and Lotus). These guys didn't get a drive based on their racing achievements or potential. If their sponsors pulls out tomorrow - they lose the drive. Just like Luis Razia in 2013. Caterham last year were basically a way in to test drive an F1 car if you have money. Pay drivers are still part of the sport and this really is an reflection of how broken the system is and how even midfield teams are not able to finance themselves.

TheOtherGuy wrote:

VDV23 wrote:

Yes and no. Obviously every company would absolutely love to sponsor a young Alonso/Vettel/MSC who then in turn become a WDC and logically a big brand name. But it doesn't really work like that, companies don't judge drivers solely on potential but rather on marketability. A mediocre British/Brazilian/German (for example) will attract many more sponsors compared to an Eastern European or Bolivian one, even if he's as talented as Senna. Not to mention that some drivers like Van der Garde and Chilton are sponsored not because they are marketable or talented, they are simply related to the right people.

I kinda disagree with this. mediocre drivers from smaller markets tend to attract MORE sponsorship because there are far fewer drivers for companies to choose from. Maldonado is a good example. Because there aren't huge numbers of drivers coming out of Venezuela, he gets all the oil money despite being painfully average.

Maldonado doesn't fall into this category, though. He is state-financed. They are not looking for profit, return on investment and whatnot. You can't compare this kind of sponsorship with Alonso's Santander or Nasr's Barco do Brasil

Also, I'm not sure Santander is an appropriate example. If I'm not wrong their partnership (Alonso & the bank) didn't start until 2009/10 and it was just fortunate unfolding of events. Santander jumped on the chance to sponsor Ferrari and they were also interested in a Spanish 2xWDC. 1+1. It looks like they have no interest of following Alonso to McLaren but rather are keen to continue their partnership with Ferrari

I sincerely doubt that. Look at pictures from the launch of the McLaren for 2007; both Alonso and Hamilton have the Santander name on their overalls. There were reasons why Santander didn't leave McLaren as early as Alonso did, but it is clear he took Santander to Ferrari with him. I'm not very interested in those reasons, though contractual difficulties, or even undesirability of dropping UK-related efforts, seem likely. In fact, Santander featured on the McLaren overalls right through 2014!While it is clear that Alonso and Santander arrived at McLaren more or less simultaneously, it seems to me that negotiations with Ferrari (started as early as late summer 2007, when Alonso got in trouble with McLaren!) may have been influenced by the importance of sponsorship by Philip Morris. I doubt it is pure luck that when Alonso was able to buy Räikkönen's seat, Santander took over as the most visible sponsor instead of Marlboro. The end (or at least the illusion of the end) of subliminal advertising made a new sponsor possible and/or desirable. That, as far as I can see, is why Räikkönen called Alonso a pay-driver. No driver switch until the sponsor problems are solved! However much a team thinks it needs a top driver for its less-than-top car to shoot for a title again...

Sorry for drifting away from the superlicence subject with this. Yet I think that if the sponsorship is right, the superlicence may well follow. After all, F1 is business first, last and all the time. Don't expect sporting performance to play much role in it.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

I think we sometimes forget that every driver on the grid is a "pay driver" in some form or another.

Take Alonso for example. He has huge backing from Santander and has brought it with him to teams.

These businesses are investing in a driver. They hope their investment will return the favour by winning races and championships. No business would invest in a bad driver, its just a poor investment.

Yes and no. Obviously every company would absolutely love to sponsor a young Alonso/Vettel/MSC who then in turn become a WDC and logically a big brand name. But it doesn't really work like that, companies don't judge drivers solely on potential but rather on marketability. A mediocre British/Brazilian/German (for example) will attract many more sponsors compared to an Eastern European or Bolivian one, even if he's as talented as Senna. Not to mention that some drivers like Van der Garde and Chilton are sponsored not because they are marketable or talented, they are simply related to the right people.

Also, I'm not sure Santander is an appropriate example. If I'm not wrong their partnership (Alonso & the bank) didn't start until 2009/10 and it was just fortunate unfolding of events. Santander jumped on the chance to sponsor Ferrari and they were also interested in a Spanish 2xWDC. 1+1. It looks like they have no interest of following Alonso to McLaren but rather are keen to continue their partnership with Ferrari

Could that be because Alonso isn't returning on the investment anymore and most likely won't be able to do that at McLaren (in the short term)??? (Just a thought)

I agree with you though, there are many factors that go into it, but to say these drivers are paying their way in is not accurate. I don't believe that really happens anymore in F1.

Nah, I just think Ferrari on its own, even without winning, is a much bigger draw for companies compared to an extremely marketable driver + a big F1 team (although they've been slipping into mediocrity in the last coupe of years). The brand Ferrari is simply that big.

But they do. Van der Grade drove in Caterham because he bought his way in. Same with Sutil and Gutierrez in Sauber, same with Nasr in Sauber now, same with Maldonado in Williams (and Lotus). These guys didn't get a drive based on their racing achievements or potential. If their sponsors pulls out tomorrow - they lose the drive. Just like Luis Razia in 2013. Caterham last year were basically a way in to test drive an F1 car if you have money. Pay drivers are still part of the sport and this really is an reflection of how broken the system is and how even midfield teams are not able to finance themselves.

TheOtherGuy wrote:

VDV23 wrote:

Yes and no. Obviously every company would absolutely love to sponsor a young Alonso/Vettel/MSC who then in turn become a WDC and logically a big brand name. But it doesn't really work like that, companies don't judge drivers solely on potential but rather on marketability. A mediocre British/Brazilian/German (for example) will attract many more sponsors compared to an Eastern European or Bolivian one, even if he's as talented as Senna. Not to mention that some drivers like Van der Garde and Chilton are sponsored not because they are marketable or talented, they are simply related to the right people.

I kinda disagree with this. mediocre drivers from smaller markets tend to attract MORE sponsorship because there are far fewer drivers for companies to choose from. Maldonado is a good example. Because there aren't huge numbers of drivers coming out of Venezuela, he gets all the oil money despite being painfully average.

Maldonado doesn't fall into this category, though. He is state-financed. They are not looking for profit, return on investment and whatnot. You can't compare this kind of sponsorship with Alonso's Santander or Nasr's Barco do Brasil

You are kidding that they are not looking for a return on investment with Maldonado right? Why would they sponsor him? Why would they put the name "Venezuala" on the back of the car?

And you are backing up what I am saying by using those drivers as examples. The sponsors got them into F1. They didn't buy there way in. I guess the only driver who bought his way in last year was Kobayashi with the crowd funding. The rest were sponsored because a company thought they would get some exposure from it. They saw something in that driver. Maybe they aren't the best at picking talent, but that is another story.

We should change it from pay drivers to sponsored drivers. Comes with the same negative connotation, but is more accurate.

You are kidding that they are not looking for a return on investment with Maldonado right? Why would they sponsor him? Why would they put the name "Venezuala" on the back of the car?

And you are backing up what I am saying by using those drivers as examples. The sponsors got them into F1. They didn't buy there way in. I guess the only driver who bought his way in last year was Kobayashi with the crowd funding. The rest were sponsored because a company thought they would get some exposure from it. They saw something in that driver. Maybe they aren't the best at picking talent, but that is another story.

We should change it from pay drivers to sponsored drivers. Comes with the same negative connotation, but is more accurate.

You are kidding yourself if you think Venezuela are getting even a fraction of return on their investment. It's obviously one of those national pride things, having a driver in F1 stuff. PDVSA were paying north of 30M quid/year for his seat in Williams (I imagine it's similar in Lotus). Unless you think he brings 30M worth of tourists to the country or his name pulls investors into Venezuela. PDVSA are paying crazy money because they can (and not only in F1) and because they want to.

Van der Garde's main sponsor was his father-in-law and Chilton's was his dad. Unless you think these things have no relation and McGregor are sponsoring VGD because he represents best value for money?

Sponsored drivers is more accurate but it's essentially the same thing Pay drivers doesn't imply that he driver is paying but rather that his seat is being paid. It could be from him, his sponsor, his dad or whatever.

You are kidding that they are not looking for a return on investment with Maldonado right? Why would they sponsor him? Why would they put the name "Venezuala" on the back of the car?

And you are backing up what I am saying by using those drivers as examples. The sponsors got them into F1. They didn't buy there way in. I guess the only driver who bought his way in last year was Kobayashi with the crowd funding. The rest were sponsored because a company thought they would get some exposure from it. They saw something in that driver. Maybe they aren't the best at picking talent, but that is another story.

We should change it from pay drivers to sponsored drivers. Comes with the same negative connotation, but is more accurate.

You are kidding yourself if you think Venezuela are getting even a fraction of return on their investment. It's obviously one of those national pride things, having a driver in F1 stuff. PDVSA were paying north of 30M quid/year for his seat in Williams (I imagine it's similar in Lotus). Unless you think he brings 30M worth of tourists to the country or his name pulls investors into Venezuela. PDVSA are paying crazy money because they can (and not only in F1) and because they want to.

Van der Garde's main sponsor was his father-in-law and Chilton's was his dad. Unless you think these things have no relation and McGregor are sponsoring VGD because he represents best value for money?

Sponsored drivers is more accurate but it's essentially the same thing Pay drivers doesn't imply that he driver is paying but rather that his seat is being paid. It could be from him, his sponsor, his dad or whatever.

A return on investment when marketing doesn't mean a dollar figure, it means getting exposure for your brand. They are exposing their country to the world. Marketing isn't always about making that money back right away. Put it this way, you and I are now talking about Venezuela when normally we wouldn't. Maybe one day we'll travel there.

I would argue that Red Bull aren't making their money back from their F1 team, or from all their sporting endeavours for that matter, but they are sure as hell getting a lot of exposure to sell drinks down the track.

You are kidding that they are not looking for a return on investment with Maldonado right? Why would they sponsor him? Why would they put the name "Venezuala" on the back of the car?

And you are backing up what I am saying by using those drivers as examples. The sponsors got them into F1. They didn't buy there way in. I guess the only driver who bought his way in last year was Kobayashi with the crowd funding. The rest were sponsored because a company thought they would get some exposure from it. They saw something in that driver. Maybe they aren't the best at picking talent, but that is another story.

We should change it from pay drivers to sponsored drivers. Comes with the same negative connotation, but is more accurate.

You are kidding yourself if you think Venezuela are getting even a fraction of return on their investment. It's obviously one of those national pride things, having a driver in F1 stuff. PDVSA were paying north of 30M quid/year for his seat in Williams (I imagine it's similar in Lotus). Unless you think he brings 30M worth of tourists to the country or his name pulls investors into Venezuela. PDVSA are paying crazy money because they can (and not only in F1) and because they want to.

Van der Garde's main sponsor was his father-in-law and Chilton's was his dad. Unless you think these things have no relation and McGregor are sponsoring VGD because he represents best value for money?

Sponsored drivers is more accurate but it's essentially the same thing Pay drivers doesn't imply that he driver is paying but rather that his seat is being paid. It could be from him, his sponsor, his dad or whatever.

A return on investment when marketing doesn't mean a dollar figure, it means getting exposure for your brand. They are exposing their country to the world. Marketing isn't always about making that money back right away. Put it this way, you and I are now talking about Venezuela when normally we wouldn't. Maybe one day we'll travel there.

I would argue that Red Bull aren't making their money back from their F1 team, or from all their sporting endeavours for that matter, but they are sure as hell getting a lot of exposure to sell drinks down the track.

You are kidding that they are not looking for a return on investment with Maldonado right? Why would they sponsor him? Why would they put the name "Venezuala" on the back of the car?

And you are backing up what I am saying by using those drivers as examples. The sponsors got them into F1. They didn't buy there way in. I guess the only driver who bought his way in last year was Kobayashi with the crowd funding. The rest were sponsored because a company thought they would get some exposure from it. They saw something in that driver. Maybe they aren't the best at picking talent, but that is another story.

We should change it from pay drivers to sponsored drivers. Comes with the same negative connotation, but is more accurate.

You are kidding yourself if you think Venezuela are getting even a fraction of return on their investment. It's obviously one of those national pride things, having a driver in F1 stuff. PDVSA were paying north of 30M quid/year for his seat in Williams (I imagine it's similar in Lotus). Unless you think he brings 30M worth of tourists to the country or his name pulls investors into Venezuela. PDVSA are paying crazy money because they can (and not only in F1) and because they want to.

Van der Garde's main sponsor was his father-in-law and Chilton's was his dad. Unless you think these things have no relation and McGregor are sponsoring VGD because he represents best value for money?

Sponsored drivers is more accurate but it's essentially the same thing Pay drivers doesn't imply that he driver is paying but rather that his seat is being paid. It could be from him, his sponsor, his dad or whatever.

A return on investment when marketing doesn't mean a dollar figure, it means getting exposure for your brand. They are exposing their country to the world. Marketing isn't always about making that money back right away. Put it this way, you and I are now talking about Venezuela when normally we wouldn't. Maybe one day we'll travel there.

I would argue that Red Bull aren't making their money back from their F1 team, or from all their sporting endeavours for that matter, but they are sure as hell getting a lot of exposure to sell drinks down the track.

Isn't that the same thing?

Quite. Exposure for your brand should always equate to a dollar figure in the commercial world. Greater exposure = more units sold. Just because it may be a long-term strategy doesn't alter that. They would still have a plan, be it 6 months, five years or some other figure. But the money invested in (in this case) F1 would be expected to give a return somewhere down the line.

You are kidding that they are not looking for a return on investment with Maldonado right? Why would they sponsor him? Why would they put the name "Venezuala" on the back of the car?

And you are backing up what I am saying by using those drivers as examples. The sponsors got them into F1. They didn't buy there way in. I guess the only driver who bought his way in last year was Kobayashi with the crowd funding. The rest were sponsored because a company thought they would get some exposure from it. They saw something in that driver. Maybe they aren't the best at picking talent, but that is another story.

We should change it from pay drivers to sponsored drivers. Comes with the same negative connotation, but is more accurate.

You are kidding yourself if you think Venezuela are getting even a fraction of return on their investment. It's obviously one of those national pride things, having a driver in F1 stuff. PDVSA were paying north of 30M quid/year for his seat in Williams (I imagine it's similar in Lotus). Unless you think he brings 30M worth of tourists to the country or his name pulls investors into Venezuela. PDVSA are paying crazy money because they can (and not only in F1) and because they want to.

Van der Garde's main sponsor was his father-in-law and Chilton's was his dad. Unless you think these things have no relation and McGregor are sponsoring VGD because he represents best value for money?

Sponsored drivers is more accurate but it's essentially the same thing Pay drivers doesn't imply that he driver is paying but rather that his seat is being paid. It could be from him, his sponsor, his dad or whatever.

A return on investment when marketing doesn't mean a dollar figure, it means getting exposure for your brand. They are exposing their country to the world. Marketing isn't always about making that money back right away. Put it this way, you and I are now talking about Venezuela when normally we wouldn't. Maybe one day we'll travel there.

I would argue that Red Bull aren't making their money back from their F1 team, or from all their sporting endeavours for that matter, but they are sure as hell getting a lot of exposure to sell drinks down the track.

Isn't that the same thing?

Quite. Exposure for your brand should always equate to a dollar figure in the commercial world. Greater exposure = more units sold. Just because it may be a long-term strategy doesn't alter that. They would still have a plan, be it 6 months, five years or some other figure. But the money invested in (in this case) F1 would be expected to give a return somewhere down the line.

That's the point I'm making. People think they are putting Maldonado into a team for national pride. I don't think so. They want to advertise their country. People argue that they are not getting their 30million back, but I say they are in other ways. Perhaps they feel it is better to spend 30mill on Maldonado than 30mill on ads on TV.

You are kidding yourself if you think Venezuela are getting even a fraction of return on their investment. It's obviously one of those national pride things, having a driver in F1 stuff. PDVSA were paying north of 30M quid/year for his seat in Williams (I imagine it's similar in Lotus). Unless you think he brings 30M worth of tourists to the country or his name pulls investors into Venezuela. PDVSA are paying crazy money because they can (and not only in F1) and because they want to.

Van der Garde's main sponsor was his father-in-law and Chilton's was his dad. Unless you think these things have no relation and McGregor are sponsoring VGD because he represents best value for money?

Sponsored drivers is more accurate but it's essentially the same thing Pay drivers doesn't imply that he driver is paying but rather that his seat is being paid. It could be from him, his sponsor, his dad or whatever.

A return on investment when marketing doesn't mean a dollar figure, it means getting exposure for your brand. They are exposing their country to the world. Marketing isn't always about making that money back right away. Put it this way, you and I are now talking about Venezuela when normally we wouldn't. Maybe one day we'll travel there.

I would argue that Red Bull aren't making their money back from their F1 team, or from all their sporting endeavours for that matter, but they are sure as hell getting a lot of exposure to sell drinks down the track.

Isn't that the same thing?

Quite. Exposure for your brand should always equate to a dollar figure in the commercial world. Greater exposure = more units sold. Just because it may be a long-term strategy doesn't alter that. They would still have a plan, be it 6 months, five years or some other figure. But the money invested in (in this case) F1 would be expected to give a return somewhere down the line.

That's the point I'm making. People think they are putting Maldonado into a team for national pride. I don't think so. They want to advertise their country. People argue that they are not getting their 30million back, but I say they are in other ways. Perhaps they feel it is better to spend 30mill on Maldonado than 30mill on ads on TV.

Well I would agree with that, although I would probably say it's a balance between the two. I wonder just how much cost analysis has been made on his involvement, for example. It's just when you said Red Bull aren't making their money back from their F1 team. Somewhere down the road they will be. It could even be immediate, for all we know. They are reaching millions globally: that's got to count for a few extra cans!

The benefit to Red Bull comes from exposure of its brand. It has the most prominent logos on the cars of both Red Bull Racing and its sister F1 team, Toro Rosso, which is based in Italy and is also owned by the drinks company. Red Bull’s Advertising Value Equivalent (AVE), the price it would have to pay to buy a similar amount of on-screen exposure, came to an estimated $283.2 million last year. This was the highest of any brand in F1 and was equivalent to 11.9% of the total gained by all the teams.

In just the past five years Red Bull has gained an estimated $1.6 billion in AVE from F1 which alone offsets the $1.2 billion it has spent on Red Bull Racing as well as its investment in Toro Rosso. The financial statements for Toro Rosso do not reveal the precise amount that Red Bull has pumped in since buying the team in 2005 but it is believed to be around $484 million.

Regardless of whether PDVSA are realizing a return on their sponsorship or not, the fact remains that without said sponsorship Maldonado would not currently be in F1. Therefore he fits the definition of a pay/sponsored driver.

Regardless of whether PDVSA are realizing a return on their sponsorship or not, the fact remains that without said sponsorship Maldonado would not currently be in F1. Therefore he fits the definition of a pay/sponsored driver.

Lets remove pay and stick with sponsored and we can all agree

Sorry for derailing the thread everyone, I've just got a bit of a gripe with the term pay drivers.

Now back to FIA super license. Although it is evil and mean spirited to other formula, it is a great move by the FIA and perhaps one of the few clever moves they have made in recent times. When I was getting into F1, it was always hard to find out where drivers were coming from, or see them rise through the ranks (they don't show much else besides the main F1 show in Australia). So knowing there is a clear ladder is great. Obviously they can come from other main single seater categories (Indy Car etc) but its good to see rookies.

Perhaps it is closer to my dream of having a promotion relegation system like the Premier League!

A return on investment when marketing doesn't mean a dollar figure, it means getting exposure for your brand. They are exposing their country to the world. Marketing isn't always about making that money back right away. Put it this way, you and I are now talking about Venezuela when normally we wouldn't. Maybe one day we'll travel there.

I would argue that Red Bull aren't making their money back from their F1 team, or from all their sporting endeavours for that matter, but they are sure as hell getting a lot of exposure to sell drinks down the track.

I know how marketing works. And I realize it's not as simple as calculating pay-per-click revnue. How are they promoting their country? Abu Dhabi with F1 are doing that. Dubai with MotoGP (and a lot more other sporting events) are doing that. Korea were promoting regional development with F1, none of those 3 countries are making money off directly F1 but instead use F1 as an end-game (altough Korea have failed in that department). Maldonado is not promoting Venezuela as a tourist destination, they are not making money off him. Just to put some things in perspective - PDVSA are paying more in sponsorship per year compared to what Philip Morris (Santander actually now) are paying to Ferrari. They're pumping crazy money just to have a Venezuelan driver in F1.

Red Bull is a different (and more successful) story and it does not compare to PDVSA.

A return on investment when marketing doesn't mean a dollar figure, it means getting exposure for your brand. They are exposing their country to the world. Marketing isn't always about making that money back right away. Put it this way, you and I are now talking about Venezuela when normally we wouldn't. Maybe one day we'll travel there.

I would argue that Red Bull aren't making their money back from their F1 team, or from all their sporting endeavours for that matter, but they are sure as hell getting a lot of exposure to sell drinks down the track.

I know how marketing works. And I realize it's not as simple as calculating pay-per-click revnue. How are they promoting their country? Abu Dhabi with F1 are doing that. Dubai with MotoGP (and a lot more other sporting events) are doing that. Korea were promoting regional development with F1, none of those 3 countries are making money off directly F1 but instead use F1 as an end-game (altough Korea have failed in that department). Maldonado is not promoting Venezuela as a tourist destination, they are not making money off him. Just to put some things in perspective - PDVSA are paying more in sponsorship per year compared to what Philip Morris (Santander actually now) are paying to Ferrari. They're pumping crazy money just to have a Venezuelan driver in F1.

Red Bull is a different (and more successful) story and it does not compare to PDVSA.

Why? How?Why does the FIA need to "create" a clear ladder by undervaluing the series they don't like but have proven to be a great training school for F1 drivers?

Typically drivers started out at national level, then surface either in European F3 or European FR2.0 level, go on to GP3 and GP2 or take the FR3.5 route. It wasn't that difficult. You could follow drivers.

It's like having the choice between two products (one imported, one local) and being glad the imported product gets slapped by ridiculous import fees because the imported one is now cheaper than the other (even though becoming somewhat more expensive because the competition has gotten considerably weaker) and "at least now it's clear which product to take".

Why? How?Why does the FIA need to "create" a clear ladder by undervaluing the series they don't like but have proven to be a great training school for F1 drivers?

Typically drivers started out at national level, then surface either in European F3 or European FR2.0 level, go on to GP3 and GP2 or take the FR3.5 route. It wasn't that difficult. You could follow drivers.

It's like having the choice between two products (one imported, one local) and being glad the imported product gets slapped by ridiculous import fees because the imported one is now cheaper than the other (even though becoming somewhat more expensive because the competition has gotten considerably weaker) and "at least now it's clear which product to take".

Yes, I don't see why the FIA has to interfere here, except for self-interest.

I can't think of any other sport where you have to serve a formal "apprenticeship" before you are admitted to the big leagues. Wayne Rooney didn't have to serve his time in the lower leagues in football, for example. Talent will be propelled into the spotlight wherever you are. The fact that we would have been deprived of both Kimi in 2001 and Ricciardo in 2011 shows there is a downside to this, not to mention that this could be the slow death knell for non-approved series as ambitious drivers avoid them in order to maximise their F1 chances. I can see why they've done it, but I don't think it's of benefit to either the fans or motorsport in general.

Why? How?Why does the FIA need to "create" a clear ladder by undervaluing the series they don't like but have proven to be a great training school for F1 drivers?

Typically drivers started out at national level, then surface either in European F3 or European FR2.0 level, go on to GP3 and GP2 or take the FR3.5 route. It wasn't that difficult. You could follow drivers.

It's like having the choice between two products (one imported, one local) and being glad the imported product gets slapped by ridiculous import fees because the imported one is now cheaper than the other (even though becoming somewhat more expensive because the competition has gotten considerably weaker) and "at least now it's clear which product to take".

Yes, I don't see why the FIA has to interfere here, except for self-interest.

I can't think of any other sport where you have to serve a formal "apprenticeship" before you are admitted to the big leagues. Wayne Rooney didn't have to serve his time in the lower leagues in football, for example. Talent will be propelled into the spotlight wherever you are. The fact that we would have been deprived of both Kimi in 2001 and Ricciardo in 2011 shows there is a downside to this, not to mention that this could be the slow death knell for non-approved series as ambitious drivers avoid them in order to maximise their F1 chances. I can see why they've done it, but I don't think it's of benefit to either the fans or motorsport in general.

It seems you are not familiar with american sports then, which all have ladders and career progression that are not only great at nurturing talent, they create amazing junior categories, protect young and developing athletes and bring more money into the sport. The main sport which in this case is F1.

Things are different in this modern age of the internet, but living in Australia it was really hard to follow the junior categories, so I just gave up. Have a read through wikipedia and it is a mess. F1.267 was replaced by Junior Renault series which then merged with F3.2 and GP6 to become Formula Confuse the hell out of me. You read histories of drivers in the past and they have come from series that have failed or not been financially viable. If we can have a clear set of championships that lead into the sport I think it is great and because they are officially supported they will be around for a long time to come, creating a great history and legacy.

Also, what if Jules Bianchi was 16 years old when he had his accident? F1 would be #%!ked! They would be held liable for injury and possible death to a minor. But no, lets get kids racing in a sport where death is a real possibility all the time. Genius

Why? How?Why does the FIA need to "create" a clear ladder by undervaluing the series they don't like but have proven to be a great training school for F1 drivers?

Typically drivers started out at national level, then surface either in European F3 or European FR2.0 level, go on to GP3 and GP2 or take the FR3.5 route. It wasn't that difficult. You could follow drivers.

It's like having the choice between two products (one imported, one local) and being glad the imported product gets slapped by ridiculous import fees because the imported one is now cheaper than the other (even though becoming somewhat more expensive because the competition has gotten considerably weaker) and "at least now it's clear which product to take".

Yes, I don't see why the FIA has to interfere here, except for self-interest.

I can't think of any other sport where you have to serve a formal "apprenticeship" before you are admitted to the big leagues. Wayne Rooney didn't have to serve his time in the lower leagues in football, for example. Talent will be propelled into the spotlight wherever you are. The fact that we would have been deprived of both Kimi in 2001 and Ricciardo in 2011 shows there is a downside to this, not to mention that this could be the slow death knell for non-approved series as ambitious drivers avoid them in order to maximise their F1 chances. I can see why they've done it, but I don't think it's of benefit to either the fans or motorsport in general.

It seems you are not familiar with american sports then, which all have ladders and career progression that are not only great at nurturing talent, they create amazing junior categories, protect young and developing athletes and bring more money into the sport. The main sport which in this case is F1.

Things are different in this modern age of the internet, but living in Australia it was really hard to follow the junior categories, so I just gave up. Have a read through wikipedia and it is a mess. F1.267 was replaced by Junior Renault series which then merged with F3.2 and GP6 to become Formula Confuse the hell out of me. You read histories of drivers in the past and they have come from series that have failed or not been financially viable. If we can have a clear set of championships that lead into the sport I think it is great and because they are officially supported they will be around for a long time to come, creating a great history and legacy.

Also, what if Jules Bianchi was 16 years old when he had his accident? F1 would be #%!ked! They would be held liable for injury and possible death to a minor. But no, lets get kids racing in a sport where death is a real possibility all the time. Genius

I think it was 2012 the last time a minor died at the wheel of some sort if vehicle - he was 11, the kart he was racing got air and smashed into a tree. Karting continues.

_________________Organiser of the single most low-tech Robot Wars tournament in history, PM for details!

Why? How?Why does the FIA need to "create" a clear ladder by undervaluing the series they don't like but have proven to be a great training school for F1 drivers?

Typically drivers started out at national level, then surface either in European F3 or European FR2.0 level, go on to GP3 and GP2 or take the FR3.5 route. It wasn't that difficult. You could follow drivers.

It's like having the choice between two products (one imported, one local) and being glad the imported product gets slapped by ridiculous import fees because the imported one is now cheaper than the other (even though becoming somewhat more expensive because the competition has gotten considerably weaker) and "at least now it's clear which product to take".

Yes, I don't see why the FIA has to interfere here, except for self-interest.

I can't think of any other sport where you have to serve a formal "apprenticeship" before you are admitted to the big leagues. Wayne Rooney didn't have to serve his time in the lower leagues in football, for example. Talent will be propelled into the spotlight wherever you are. The fact that we would have been deprived of both Kimi in 2001 and Ricciardo in 2011 shows there is a downside to this, not to mention that this could be the slow death knell for non-approved series as ambitious drivers avoid them in order to maximise their F1 chances. I can see why they've done it, but I don't think it's of benefit to either the fans or motorsport in general.

It seems you are not familiar with american sports then, which all have ladders and career progression that are not only great at nurturing talent, they create amazing junior categories, protect young and developing athletes and bring more money into the sport. The main sport which in this case is F1.

Things are different in this modern age of the internet, but living in Australia it was really hard to follow the junior categories, so I just gave up. Have a read through wikipedia and it is a mess. F1.267 was replaced by Junior Renault series which then merged with F3.2 and GP6 to become Formula Confuse the hell out of me. You read histories of drivers in the past and they have come from series that have failed or not been financially viable. If we can have a clear set of championships that lead into the sport I think it is great and because they are officially supported they will be around for a long time to come, creating a great history and legacy.

Also, what if Jules Bianchi was 16 years old when he had his accident? F1 would be #%!ked! They would be held liable for injury and possible death to a minor. But no, lets get kids racing in a sport where death is a real possibility all the time. Genius

I think it was 2012 the last time a minor died at the wheel of some sort if vehicle - he was 11, the kart he was racing got air and smashed into a tree. Karting continues.

Was the competition under the same international scrutiny as Formula 1?

Was the competition under the same international scrutiny as Formula 1?

Of course not, but you'd think that would have brought about major safety changes and aside from the felling of one tree I don't believe anything changed. So far, F1 has taken tentative steps towards preventative measure in the light of everyone making it overtly clear that Jules could have died. The age of the driver injured or killed isn't the consideration, what matters is preventing it happening again. F1 got a lot of bad publicity from the events at Suzuka, especially as it was largely a financial consideration that seemed to drive the lack of last minute schedule changes. Despite this, there hasn't been a huge crucifixion of F1. The karting example just serves to reinforce that point.

_________________Organiser of the single most low-tech Robot Wars tournament in history, PM for details!

Was the competition under the same international scrutiny as Formula 1?

Of course not, but you'd think that would have brought about major safety changes and aside from the felling of one tree I don't believe anything changed. So far, F1 has taken tentative steps towards preventative measure in the light of everyone making it overtly clear that Jules could have died. The age of the driver injured or killed isn't the consideration, what matters is preventing it happening again. F1 got a lot of bad publicity from the events at Suzuka, especially as it was largely a financial consideration that seemed to drive the lack of last minute schedule changes. Despite this, there hasn't been a huge crucifixion of F1. The karting example just serves to reinforce that point.

Fair enough that you feel it reinforces your point, but it doesn't change my thoughts on the subject.

Why? How?Why does the FIA need to "create" a clear ladder by undervaluing the series they don't like but have proven to be a great training school for F1 drivers?

Typically drivers started out at national level, then surface either in European F3 or European FR2.0 level, go on to GP3 and GP2 or take the FR3.5 route. It wasn't that difficult. You could follow drivers.

It's like having the choice between two products (one imported, one local) and being glad the imported product gets slapped by ridiculous import fees because the imported one is now cheaper than the other (even though becoming somewhat more expensive because the competition has gotten considerably weaker) and "at least now it's clear which product to take".

Yes, I don't see why the FIA has to interfere here, except for self-interest.

I can't think of any other sport where you have to serve a formal "apprenticeship" before you are admitted to the big leagues. Wayne Rooney didn't have to serve his time in the lower leagues in football, for example. Talent will be propelled into the spotlight wherever you are. The fact that we would have been deprived of both Kimi in 2001 and Ricciardo in 2011 shows there is a downside to this, not to mention that this could be the slow death knell for non-approved series as ambitious drivers avoid them in order to maximise their F1 chances. I can see why they've done it, but I don't think it's of benefit to either the fans or motorsport in general.

Kimi and Ricciardo would have got the necessary points, what about the drivers its stops getting into F1 based purely on money like the Chiltons, Pics, van der Gardes, Ericssons etc.?

Things are different in this modern age of the internet, but living in Australia it was really hard to follow the junior categories, so I just gave up. Have a read through wikipedia and it is a mess. F1.267 was replaced by Junior Renault series which then merged with F3.2 and GP6 to become Formula Confuse the hell out of me. You read histories of drivers in the past and they have come from series that have failed or not been financially viable. If we can have a clear set of championships that lead into the sport I think it is great and because they are officially supported they will be around for a long time to come, creating a great history and legacy.

So what you're basically saying is that it's entirely acceptable for the FIA to try and extinguish perfectly viable racing series that have given us a lot of good F1 drivers, because you understand it better that way? Even though the situation at the moment isn't even really that hard to grasp and even if the Renault-backed series have existed for longer than GP2 and GP3? They deserve to be relegated to a spot in the sidelines just for your understanding?

I don't get this.

Quote:

Also, what if Jules Bianchi was 16 years old when he had his accident? F1 would be #%!ked! They would be held liable for injury and possible death to a minor. But no, lets get kids racing in a sport where death is a real possibility all the time. Genius

That's another discussion really. I'm not advocating against the idea of attributing points for performances in feeder series, nor am I against imposing an age limit (although I do find it artificial/arbitrary and I do find it amusing that a 17-year-old can go ahead and race at 320km/h around Monza in a GP2 but not in a F1).

Why? How?Why does the FIA need to "create" a clear ladder by undervaluing the series they don't like but have proven to be a great training school for F1 drivers?

Typically drivers started out at national level, then surface either in European F3 or European FR2.0 level, go on to GP3 and GP2 or take the FR3.5 route. It wasn't that difficult. You could follow drivers.

It's like having the choice between two products (one imported, one local) and being glad the imported product gets slapped by ridiculous import fees because the imported one is now cheaper than the other (even though becoming somewhat more expensive because the competition has gotten considerably weaker) and "at least now it's clear which product to take".

Yes, I don't see why the FIA has to interfere here, except for self-interest.

I can't think of any other sport where you have to serve a formal "apprenticeship" before you are admitted to the big leagues. Wayne Rooney didn't have to serve his time in the lower leagues in football, for example. Talent will be propelled into the spotlight wherever you are. The fact that we would have been deprived of both Kimi in 2001 and Ricciardo in 2011 shows there is a downside to this, not to mention that this could be the slow death knell for non-approved series as ambitious drivers avoid them in order to maximise their F1 chances. I can see why they've done it, but I don't think it's of benefit to either the fans or motorsport in general.

Kimi and Ricciardo would have got the necessary points, what about the drivers its stops getting into F1 based purely on money like the Chiltons, Pics, van der Gardes, Ericssons etc.?

Kimi had 23 single seat races to his name. He would not have entered F1 when he did. Ricciardo, too, would have been delayed

Why? How?Why does the FIA need to "create" a clear ladder by undervaluing the series they don't like but have proven to be a great training school for F1 drivers?

Typically drivers started out at national level, then surface either in European F3 or European FR2.0 level, go on to GP3 and GP2 or take the FR3.5 route. It wasn't that difficult. You could follow drivers.

It's like having the choice between two products (one imported, one local) and being glad the imported product gets slapped by ridiculous import fees because the imported one is now cheaper than the other (even though becoming somewhat more expensive because the competition has gotten considerably weaker) and "at least now it's clear which product to take".

Yes, I don't see why the FIA has to interfere here, except for self-interest.

I can't think of any other sport where you have to serve a formal "apprenticeship" before you are admitted to the big leagues. Wayne Rooney didn't have to serve his time in the lower leagues in football, for example. Talent will be propelled into the spotlight wherever you are. The fact that we would have been deprived of both Kimi in 2001 and Ricciardo in 2011 shows there is a downside to this, not to mention that this could be the slow death knell for non-approved series as ambitious drivers avoid them in order to maximise their F1 chances. I can see why they've done it, but I don't think it's of benefit to either the fans or motorsport in general.

It seems you are not familiar with american sports then, which all have ladders and career progression that are not only great at nurturing talent, they create amazing junior categories, protect young and developing athletes and bring more money into the sport. The main sport which in this case is F1.

Things are different in this modern age of the internet, but living in Australia it was really hard to follow the junior categories, so I just gave up. Have a read through wikipedia and it is a mess. F1.267 was replaced by Junior Renault series which then merged with F3.2 and GP6 to become Formula Confuse the hell out of me. You read histories of drivers in the past and they have come from series that have failed or not been financially viable. If we can have a clear set of championships that lead into the sport I think it is great and because they are officially supported they will be around for a long time to come, creating a great history and legacy.

Also, what if Jules Bianchi was 16 years old when he had his accident? F1 would be #%!ked! They would be held liable for injury and possible death to a minor. But no, lets get kids racing in a sport where death is a real possibility all the time. Genius

I'm not against junior categories, but what the FIA is doing is effectively shutting out competitor junior categories out of self interest. What about e.g. DTM? There are many talented drivers in there. Now that pool is either shut out or drivers have to exit the series. That is not fair on series like DTM IMO

Kimi and Ricciardo would have got the necessary points, what about the drivers its stops getting into F1 based purely on money like the Chiltons, Pics, van der Gardes, Ericssons etc.?

Merely playing advocate of the devil here: as much as it pains me, a case can be made for saying that in the current F1, those drivers are needed as well in order to keep smaller teams afloat, and even then it's hard for them as evidenced by the financial struggles of a lot of teams.

Also van der Garde did, at one point, qualify for a SL by virtue of scoring 41 points in FR3.5 and GP2.

Why? How?Why does the FIA need to "create" a clear ladder by undervaluing the series they don't like but have proven to be a great training school for F1 drivers?

Typically drivers started out at national level, then surface either in European F3 or European FR2.0 level, go on to GP3 and GP2 or take the FR3.5 route. It wasn't that difficult. You could follow drivers.

It's like having the choice between two products (one imported, one local) and being glad the imported product gets slapped by ridiculous import fees because the imported one is now cheaper than the other (even though becoming somewhat more expensive because the competition has gotten considerably weaker) and "at least now it's clear which product to take".

Yes, I don't see why the FIA has to interfere here, except for self-interest.

I can't think of any other sport where you have to serve a formal "apprenticeship" before you are admitted to the big leagues. Wayne Rooney didn't have to serve his time in the lower leagues in football, for example. Talent will be propelled into the spotlight wherever you are. The fact that we would have been deprived of both Kimi in 2001 and Ricciardo in 2011 shows there is a downside to this, not to mention that this could be the slow death knell for non-approved series as ambitious drivers avoid them in order to maximise their F1 chances. I can see why they've done it, but I don't think it's of benefit to either the fans or motorsport in general.

Kimi and Ricciardo would have got the necessary points, what about the drivers its stops getting into F1 based purely on money like the Chiltons, Pics, van der Gardes, Ericssons etc.?

Kimi had 23 single seat races to his name. He would not have entered F1 when he did. Ricciardo, too, would have been delayed

No and why should he?

I was just saying that Kimi would have been good enough to collect the necessary points in the following 2 years.

As for Ricciardo being British F3 Champion and runner up in FRenault 3.5 would have been enough for him, just substitute British F3 for either GP3 or F3 Open and you will see what i mean.